T he H onorabl e W i l l i am H

. St af f ord, Jr

. , U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ct Ju dge f or t he N ort her n D i s t r i ct of Fl ori da, * si t t i ng by desi gnat i o n.

NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 07a0748n.06 F iled: October 19, 2007 Case No. 06- 4090 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT M OU M IN I K

ERE, P etitioner , v. AL BER TO G ON Z AL ES, A tt or ne y G e ne r al, Respondent.

_______________________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP P EA L F RO M THE BOA RD OF IM M IG RA TIO N AP P EA LS

BEFORE: BATCHELDER and GILMA N, Circ uit Jud ges; STAF F ORD , District Judge. * ALICE M. B ATCHELDER, Circuit Ju dge. Moumini Ke re seeks revie w of the B oard of I mmigration Appea ls’s (“B I A”) decision uphol ding the I mmigration J udg e’s ( “I J ”) de nial of Ke re’ s

a pp lic a tio n f

or a sylum , w ithho ldi ngof

re mov a l, a

nd pr ote c tio n u nd er the Conve nti on Ag a ins t Torture (“CAT” ). We deny the petition for re view.

I. BACKG ROUND Ker e, a 57- y ear -old native of B urkina F aso, entered the United States on Marc h 23, 2004, using a non-immigra

nt visa, and filed an application for asylum, withholding of remova l, and CAT relief , asser ting that his unc les, Ali K ere (“A li) and Moris Ker e (“Mor is”), perse cuted him on theT he r ecor d re f er s t o t hi s i ndi vi dual as bot h Phi l i pp e B al i ma and B al i ma P hi l i pp e. 1 2 basis of religion and the g overnme nt of Bur kina Fa so was unwilling or unable to prote ct Ker e. The former I mmigration and Nationalization Service ser ved Ke re w ith a Notice to Appe ar be cause he

o v e r s t aye d

h i s v i s a . K e r e c o n c e d e d

r e m o v a b i l i ty. A. Asylum Appli cation I n h is a pp lic a tio n, Ke re a lle g e d that his un c le s fi le d f a lse e mbe zzle me nt c ha

rg e s a g a ins t hi m in Burkina

Fa so in 2003. I n Aug ust of 2003, after re turning from a tr ip to the United States, Kere lear ned that his uncles had filed criminal char g es aga inst him, alleg ing that he kept 4,900,000 fr ancs CFA, whic h his uncles had g iven to him to deliver to another individual. Kere e x plained that he

rec eived the mone y , that he wa s to deliver the money to E ric Ker e, and that he did, in fac t, deliver the money

to Eric Ke re. H e wa s imprisoned while a mag istrate conducte d an investigation into the alleg ations. On Novembe r 4, 2003, the mag istrate dec lare d Ker e inno cent of the embezzlement char g es, and he was re lease d on November 7, 2003. Ker e stated that in Febr

uary 2004, his unc les visited Pastor Phil ippe B alima , Ker e’s f riend, 1 and told Pastor Ba lima that thoug h the mag istrate had rele ased Ker e, they wer e not g oing to lea

ve him alone — they

planned to attac k Ker e. Pastor B al i m a re lay ed the thre at to Ker e, who, on Fe bruar y 21, 2004, went to see the m agi s t ra t e, rela ying to him Ker e’s unc les’ thre at and se eking pr ote c tio n. Th e ma g istrate tol d him that the jus tic e sy ste m cou ld not e ns ur e his sa fe ty and tha t if Al i and Moris attacked Ke re, he could file a complaint with the police. In Marc h 2004, Ker e lef t B ur kin a F a so fo r t

he Un ite d St a te s. Ke re e xpla ine d th a t Al i and Mo ri s, wh o are Mu sli m, h a te him be c a us e he is C hr ist ian. Whil e they have ne ver said so direc tly , Ker e stated that he knew from their a ctions that they have a problemAdr i e n e r e f e r s t o t h i s i n di v i du a l a s t h e “ j a i l k e e pe r . ” I t a pp e a r s , h ow e v e r , t h a t t h e “ j a i l k e e pe r ” i s t h e s a me 2 m ag i st rate w ho p rev i o usly ac q uit t ed K ere o f t he em b ez zlem en t ch arg es.

3 wi th h is r e lig ion . K e re be lie ve d that his un c le s br ou g ht the fa lse e mbe zzle me nt c ha rg e s a g a ins t hi m to h ur t hi m be c a

us e of his re lig ion . Ke re fe are d that A li a nd Mo ri s w ou ld atta c k a

nd /or kil l hi m if he we re to re turn to Bur

kina Fa so. B. A sy lum He ar ing At the asylum hearing , Ker e provide d some additional in formation. He explained that he was raised by his uncles in a Muslim household, but he conver ted to Christianity

at ag e 11. His uncle s responde d to his conver sion by making him work on Sunday s to preve nt him from attending churc h service s, making him sleep on the ground, and forc ing him to g o without food at times. Kere lived with his uncles for three more y ear s and then moved in w ith his sister bec ause his uncle s mistreated him. Kere later be came a pastor in the A ssemblies of God chur ch in B urkina F aso. Ke re ’s te sti mony a

bo ut the e mbe zzle me nt c ha rg e s and his tim e in p ri so n w a s c on sis te nt w ith his asylum application. He a dded that his uncles g ave him the money on J uly 1 1 , 2 0 0 2, and he delivere d the money

to Eric Ke re on July

12, 2002. Ker e also testified that after he lef t Burkina Fa so, his son, Adriene, learne d that Ker e’s unc les had tried to harm him. Ker e’s son wrote a letter in support of his father’s a sylum application, which state d th a t on F e br

ua ry 1, 20 05 , A dr ie ne and

ano the r i nd ivi du a l w e nt t o th e loc a l ja il, pr e suma bly to obtain a copy of Kere’ s rele ase order. The magistrate told Adriene that some time after Ker e lef t 2 Bur kina Fa so, Ali and Moris came to see him and a sked for his help in preventingKer e fr om leaving the country . The mag istrate said he could not help them. Adrie ne’s let t er the n states that the g endar mes came to Ker e’s house on October 21, 2004, to investigate Ker e’s f reque n t t ri ps to the4

Un ite d St a te s, and

to c on fi sc a te Ke re ’s tr ave l do c ume nts
. Th e le tte r imp lic itl y links the un c le s’ vis it to the mag istrate with the g endar mes’ ar rival at Ke re’ s home. Ker e, howe ver, e x plicitly linked his uncles’ visit with the ge ndarme s’ visit to hi s home. He

asser ted that the same mag istrate who e x onerat ed him on the embezzlement char g es sent the g e nd arm es to h is h ou se on Oc tob e r 2 1 at th e re qu e st o f h is u nc le s. Ke re did

no t be lie ve that hi s uncles ha d filed anothe r complaint ag ainst him that might have prompt ed the mag istrate to send the g endar mes. The I J pointed out that if the m ag istrate did whateve r Ali and Moris wa nted, then the

ma g istrate wo uld

have c on vic te d K e re of

ste a lin g the mon e y , b ut h e did no t. I J : Well, i f [the ma g istrate] did whateve r [y our uncles] wanted, you would have be en convicted of

stealing the money , but you wer en’t. So why would the mag istrate wa nt to harm y ou later on? Ker e: I t was bec ause A li and Moris have ha d plans to hurt me. That’s why they wer e ru sh inglik e that. Ke re e xpla ine d th a t hi s unc le s w ante d to pr e ve nt h im f ro m le avin g the c ountry

so that th e y

c ou ld

a tta c k h im. And whi le his unc le s w e re old e r m e n, he wa s a fr a id t he y wo uld se nd so me on e out to

a tta c k h im. Additionally , Ker e provide d a letter author ed by

his wife, which de tailed Ker e’s 2003 imp ri so nme nt p e nd ingthe ou tco me of th e e mbe zzle me nt c ha rg e s. Th e le tte r, ho we ve r, fa ile d to mention the October

2004 g endar

mes’ visit to her home. Th e g ov e rnme nt qu e sti on e d Ke re a bo ut the tim ing of Pa sto r B a lim a ’s c on ve rs a tio n wi th A li

and Mo ri s. I n his as ylum a

pp lic a tio n, Ke re state d that Past or B a lim a he ard fr om Ali and Mo ri s in Fe bruar y 2004 and then r eporte d the conve rsation to Ker e shortly there afte r. In a letter

authore d by Pastor Ba lima, he indicated that Ali and Moris visited him on Dec ember 5, 2003 — not in Febr uary5

2004. Ker e did not know why Pastor Ba lima waited almost two months to tell him about Ali’s and Mo ri s’ s thre a t. The I J denied r elief be cause Ker e fa iled to establish a nex us betwee n the eve nts he descr ibed and a ba sis for asylum relief. He conclude d that while there is certa inly family friction betwe en Ke re and his uncles, r elig ion did not appear to be the ca

use of it. Addit ionally , he found that the Bur kina le g a l sy st em a

pp e are d to be fu

nc tio nin g and

that lo c a l a

uth or iti e s c ou ld a

nd wo uld int e rv e ne if Ker e’s unc les attempted to har m him. The BIA af

firm ed t h e I J ’s dec ision without opinion. Kere timely petitioned this Court for review of the B I A’s dec ision. II. AN AL YSI S Where the B I A af

firms the I J ’s dec ision without opinion, we re view the I J ’s dec ision as the final ag ency

order

. De nk

o v . I NS , 351 F.3d 717, 730 (6th Cir. 2003)

. We w ill uphol dt h e I J ’s decision if it is “‘supported by rea s onable, substantial, and pr obative evide nce on the rec ord considere d as a whole.’” Kol iada v. INS , 2 5 9 F. 3 d 4 8 2 , 4 8 6 (6 thC i r. 2 0 0 1 ) ( qu o t i n g INS v. Elias-Zacarias , 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992)). The petit ioner, ther efor e, must show that the evidenc e “not only supports a contra ry conclusion, but indeed c om pe ls it.” Klawi tter v. INS, 970 F.2d 149, 151-52 (6th Cir. 1992) (e mphasis in orig inal). Additionally , we may not r ever se simply beca use we would have decide d the ca se diffe rently

. Mi k ha ile v itc h v . I

NS , 146 F.3d 384, 388 (6th Cir. 1998). A. Adverse Cre dib ility Dete rm ination Ker e ar g ues that the I J made se vera l adv erse cre dibilit y deter minations, which are not

su pp or te d b y su bs tanti a l evi de nc e . Th e g ov e rnme nt co nte nd s, ho we ve r, that the I J mad e no a dv e rs e

cre dibilit y

deter minations, and, inst ea d “m er el y indicated doubts about pa rts of Ke re’ s story

that

w e r e b a s e d

o n i n f o r m a t i o np r o v i d e d

i nt h e l e t t e r

f r o mK e r e ’ s s o n . ” Inh i s w r i t t e nd e c i s i o n , th e IJ6

did no t a c c e pt a s tr

ue Ke re ’s “ c la im that th e g e nd arm e s c ame to h is h ou se a ft e r he le ft B ur kin a F a so fo r the purp os e of c on fi sc a tin g his pa ssp or t and re fu sin g to al low

him to l e ave ,” statin g that “ [Ke re ’s ] testimony was not par

ticularly convincingon this point.” The I J did, however , acc ept as true Ker e’s

c l a i mt h a th e w a s p r o s e c u t e d f o r e mb e z z l i n g h i s un c l e s ’ m o n e y. It i s u n c l e ar

w h e t h e r t h e IJ m a d e an a dv e r s e c r e d i b i l i ty d e t e r m i n a t i o n . It a

p p e ar s th a tth e IJ did no t ne c e ssa

ri ly fi nd Ke re inc re dib le , b ut r a the r c on c lud e d th a t K e re ’s sto ry , w he n c on sid e re d in lig ht o f t he tot a lity of the e vid e nc e , s imp ly

did no t mak e se ns e . Wh e the r t he I J found

Ke re c re dib le is i mmate ri al to our a

na ly sis be c a

us e Ke re c ann ot d e mon str a te that th e e vid e nc e c omp e ls a conclusion contra

ry to that of the I J nor ca

n he sati s fy

the statutory

require ments for the r elief he

se e ks

. B. D e nia l of A sy lumCl aim To be e ligible f

or asylum, an applica

nt must first establish that he qualifies as a ref ug ee. Ou da v . I NS , 3 2 4 F

. 3 d

4 4 5 , 4 5 1 ( 6 t hC i r . 2 0 0 3 )

. “ E v e ni f t h e a l i e nqu a l i f

i e s a s a r e f u g e e , t h e IJ m ay, in his discretion, deny

asylum.” Y

u v . A sh c ro

ft , 3 64 F .3 d 7 00 , 7 02 (6 th C ir . 2 00 4) (c iti ng8 U .S. C. § 1158(a) & ( b)). We re view “the fac tual deter mination of whether

a petitioner qua lifies as a r efug ee under a ‘substantial evidenc e’ te st.” Gilaj v. Gonzales , 4 0 8 F. 3 d 2 7 5 , 2 8 3 (6 thC i r. 2 0 0 5 ) ( ci t i n g Yu , 364 F.3d at 702). A re fug ee is an alien who is unw illing to r eturn to his country “bec ause of perse cution or a well-founde d fea

r of pe rsec ution on a ccount of rac e, re ligion, nationality , membership in a pa rticular social g roup, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a) (42)( A). An a pplicant has the bur den of proving that he suffere d past perse cution or has a well-founded fear of future perse cution. Ramaj v. Gonzales , 466 F.3d 520, 529 ( 6th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted).7

Ke re e sta bli sh e s p a st p e rs e c uti on

if he sh ow s th a t he ha s su ff

e re d p e rs e c ut i o n

i n B u r k ina F a so “‘on a ccount of

rac e, re ligion, nationality , membership in a particular soc ial g roup, or political opinion, and is unable or unwilling to return to, or ava il hims elf . . . of the protec tion of, that country owing to such perse cution.’” Patel v. Gonzales , 126 F. App’x 283, 291 n.3 (6th Cir. 2005) (quoting 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)( 1)). I f Ke re c annot establish past per secution, he m ay es t ablish a “w ell-founde d fea r of f uture perse cution” if (1) he has a fea r of pe rsec ution in Burkina F aso on ac count of r ac e, relig ion,

natio na lity , me mber sh ip i n a pa rt ic ula r s oc ia l g ro up , o r p oli tic a l op ini on ; ( 2) the re is a re a so na ble po ssi bil ity

he wo uld su ff

e r suc h pe rs e c uti on if he we re to re tur n to Burk ina F a so ; and

(3 ) h e is una

ble or unwil ling to re turn Bur kina Fa so beca

use of suc h fea

r. Mikhailev itch , 146 F.3d at 389; Patel , 126 F . App ’x a t 29 1 n. 3 (q

uo tin g 8 C.F .R. § 20 8. 13 (b )( 2) (i ))

. Ke re ’s fe ar of pe rs e c uti on mus t be bo th subjectively

g enuine a

nd ob j ec t i v el y rea sonable. Mikhailev itch , 1 46 F .3 d at 38 9. Ke re mus t there fore “ac tually

fea r that he w ill be persec uted upon re turn to h i s co u n t ry , and he must pre sent

ev i d en ce es tablishing a

n objective situation under which his fea r ca n be dee med re asonable .” Id. (citation and inter

nal punctuation omitted). We have he ld that “‘pe rsec ution’ within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. § 1101( a)( 42)(A) require s more than a

fewisolated incidents of ve rbal ha ras s m en t o r i ntimidation, unaccompanied by any phy sical puni shment, infliction of harm, or sig nificant de privation of liberty .” Id . at 390. Indeed,

“ ‘[p ]er se c uti on

is a n e xtre me c oncep t th a t do e s n ot i nc lud e e ve ry so rt of tr e a tme nt o ur

so c ie ty

re gards as offe nsive.’” Skirko v . Gonzales , 153 F. App’ x 958, 961 (6th Cir. 2005) (quoting A li v

. As hc ro ft , 366 F.3d 407, 410 (6th Cir. 2004)). Finally , “a finding of perse cution ordinarily require s a dete rmination that g overnme nt authorities, if t h ey did not actually

perpe trate or

incite theW e a l s o f i nd i t odd t hat K er e’ s un cl es wai t ed over a y ear t o pres s ch ar ges . K er e s t at ed t hat he del i ver ed 3 t h e mon ey on J u l y 12, 2002, a n d di d n ot r ec ei v e n ot i ce of t h e ch ar g es u n t i l Au g u s t of 2003. 8 perse cution, condoned i t o r at l east de monstrated a c omplete helplessness to prote ct the victims.” Ga lin v . I NS , 2 13 F .3 d 9 55 , 9 58 (7 th C ir . 2 00 0) ; Skirko , 15 3 F . App ’x at 96 1 ( same ); see also Pilica

v . A sh c ro ft , 388 F.3d 941, 950 (6th Cir. 2004) (“ perse cution [i ]s t he infliction of har m or suffe ring b y the g overnme nt, or persons a g overnme nt is unwill ing or unable to contr ol, to overcome a char acte ristic of the victim”) ( citation omitted). Th e ba sis fo r K e re ’s c la ims is that hi s unc le s p e rs e c ute d h im an d will c on tin ue to p e rs e c ute h i mf o r h i s c o n v e r s i o nt o C h r i s t i an i t y an d h i s c o n t i nu i n g p r a c t i c e o f t h e C h r i s t i anf

a i th

. T h e IJ conclude d, howeve r, that Ke re f ailed to establish that his uncles’ a ctions were motivated by Ker e’s relig ion. That is, Kere did not demonstrate that he w as per secute d or had a wel l -f o u n d ed fea

r of perse cution on acc ount of relig ion. The I J noted that Ker e’ s u n cles failed to preve nt Kere from

c on ve rt ingto C hr ist ianit

y and fa ile d to pr e ve nt h im f

ro m mov ing out of the ho us e to liv e wi th h is sis te r. Th e re wa s n o e vid e nc e that hi s unc le s e ve r atte mpt e d to a tta c k h im. The I J conclude d that the purpose of the g endar mes’ Oc tober 2004 visit to Kere ’s home wa s not clear . Adriene ’s letter did not off er a cl ea r explanation, and Ker e provide d no explanation beyond his own assumptions. The I J surmised that in light of the a ppare ntly functionin g leg al sy stem, it was quite possible that the uncles filed a nother c omplaint ag ainst Kere , and this is what broug ht the g endar

mes to his home. Th e I J que sti on e d th e nature o f t he re latio ns hip be tw e e n K e re and his un c le s, e sp e c ia lly beca use his unc les turned over a considera ble sum of money

to him and Kere ag ree d to deliver the money to another pe rson. The I J conclude d that “ther e is more [ to the s tory of the e mbezz lement 3W h ile c e rta inly u n p le a sa n t, the se a c tio n s, w itho u t m o re , d o no t rise to the lev e l o f p e rs e c u tio n ne c e ssa ry to 4 q u a lif y fo r a sylu m . See , e. g. , M i khai l evi t ch , 146 F. 3d a t 390. 9 char g es] than waiting 30 y ear s to ge t reve ng e on [Kere ] for becominga Christian.” The I J conclude d th a t“ [w ]h a t e v e r

t h e c a u s e o f t h i s f am i l y f r i c t i o n , i tc e rt a i n l y

d o e s n o ta

p p e ar t o b e p r i ma ri ly relig ion.” Ke re c ha lle ng e s th is c on clus ion . B e y on d h is o wn te sti mony

that hi s u nc le s f ile d th e fa lse char g es to punish him because of his relig ion, Kere points to l etters submitted by friends a nd other pastors st ating that afte r Kere’ s rele ase from prison, they lear ned that Ke re’ s uncles . . . “w ere afte r him be c a us e of his fa ithand

his be ne fi c e [sic ] of

Go d’ s g ra c e ” and

that “ [c]e rt a in m e mbe rs of his family who ar e hostile to the Gospel as w ell as his minist ry had tried by all means without touching him” to harm Ke re, a

nd so they set a trap for him with the false embezzlement charg e instead. K ere also argues that he e stablished past perse cution beca use of the t hree y ear s during which his uncles sta rv e d h im, ma de him

sle e p o n th e fl oo r, and

pr e ve nte d h im f

ro m atte nd ingc hurc h s e rv ic e s. 4 Whil e ther e appe ars to be ba d blood betwee n Ker e and his unc les, the evide nce doe s not c ompel us to conclude that Kere ’s uncles pe rsec uted him on the basis of his relig ion. Mo re ov e r, Ke re fa ils to d e mon str a te ho w the g ov e rnme nt a uth or iti e s c on do ne d h is unc le s’ actions or we re he lpless to protect him. Kere has neve r cla imed that Bur kina offic ials perpe trated or incited pe rsec ution ag ainst him on the grounds of relig ion. When Ker e was imprisoned, it was beca use of the embezzlement c harg es pending ag ainst him, not beca use he w as a Christian minister. I f the B urkina g overnme nt h ad any desire to pe rsec ute Ker e for his relig ious beliefs, sure ly the mag istrate would have just let him sit in prison, rather than a cquitting him. While the I J reg retted the fa lse cha

rg es br o u gh t against Ke re a nd the re sulting imprisonment, he re cog nized that Kere ’s10

ve ry a c qu itt a l e vid e nc e d th a t B ur kin a ’s le g a l sy ste m w or

ks

. L ikewise, B urkina off

icials did not demonstrate “ a co m p l et e helplessness to protec t the victims.” Ga lin , 213 F.3d at 958. When K ere approa ched the mag istrate for protec tion, he rec eived the same a

nswer f rom him that h e l i k el y would have r ece ived from a local police of

fice r in the United States: “until someone ac tually attempts to harm y ou, there is nothing the p o l i ce ca n do.” Th e ma g istrate ins tr

uc te d K e re to run aw ay and c on ta c t the po lic e if his un c le s tr ie d to a tta c k h im. I n f a c t, a s th e I J note d, “ [n]ob od y se e me d to have take n th e thr e a t [ma de by his un c le s to Pastor Ba lima] very

seriously ,” includingPastor Ba lima. Pastor B alima’s letter stated that Ke re’ s

un c le s a pp ro a c he d h im o n D e c e mbe r 5 , 2 00 3, and c on ve y e d th e ir

pla n to a tta c k K e re . Pa sto r B a lim a t h e nw a i t e d

t w o m o n t h s t o c o m m u n i c a t e th e th r e a tt o K e r e . K e r e c o u l d n o te x p l a i nth e d e l ay. T h e I J l i kewise c oncluded that Ke re f ailed to establish a we ll-founded f ear of future perse cution, noting that Ke re’ s uncles “ha ve bee n frustrated by their i nability to act a g ainst [Kere] th r o u g h t h e l e g a l s y s t e m . ” A n d w h i l e K e r e m ay h av e a s u b j e c t i v e f e ar o f h ar m i f h e re tur

ns to B ur kin a F a so , h e ha s f

a ile d to “ pr e se nt e vid e nc e e sta bli sh ing an ob

je c tiv e sit uatio n und e r whic h h is fea r ca n be dee med re asonable .” Mikhailev itch , 146 F.3d at 389. Ke re argue s th a t Mat t er of S-A- , 22 I . & N . Dec . 1328 (B I A 2000), dictates a diff ere nt conclusion. Ac cordingto Kere , Matter of S-A- “stands for the propositio n t h at a credible fea r of perse cution by

a non-g overnme ntal actor on acc ount of relig ious belie fs i s a sufficie nt basis for asylum when the g overnme nt is unable or unwilling to c ontrol the non-g overnme ntal actor to preve nt the per secution.” In S-A- , the petitioner wa s a 20 or 21 y ear old g irl who had been terror ized by her fathe r b e c a

us e sh e fa ile d to c on fo rm

to h is o rt ho do x Musl im b e lie fs . The pe tit ion e r d id n ot s e e k h e lp fr om t he po lic e be c a

us e it wou ld have be e n fut ile ; ac c or din g to t he pe tit ion e r’ s a

un t, u nd e r M us lim11

law, par ticularly in Morocco, a

fathe r’s powe r over

his daug hter is unfe ttered. U nder the se fac ts, the BIA conc luded that the petitioner qualified for asylum be cause her f ather perse cuted he r on re ligious g rounds and the Morocca n authorities would have been unw illing or una ble to control her

fathe r’s conduct. S-A- , 22 I . & N . at 1335. Ker e’s c ase is distinguishable from the f acts in S-A-

. Be y ond the s heer differ ence betwee n what S-A- e ndured w ith her father a nd what Ker e has endure d with his uncles, Ker e has pr ovided no evidenc e that the Burkina gove rnment i s unable or unwilling to control his uncles’ conduct a nd protec t Kere . I n fac t, the evidenc e points to the contra ry — the local a

uthorities not only

respond to a nd inv e sti g a te c ri min a l c omp la int s, but a lso a c qu it tho se inn oc e nt o f t he c ha rg e s. C. De nia l of W it hhol ding of R e m ov al C lai m “When an a

pplicant ‘fa il[ s] t o meet the statutory elig i b i lity

require ments for a sylum, the

rec ord nec essar ily

supports the finding that [t he applicant does] not meet the more string ent standar d of a clea r probability of perse cution require d for withholding of [remova l] .’” Berri v. Gonzales , 468 F. 3 d 3 9 0 , 3 9 7 (6 t hC i r. 2 0 0 6 ) ( qu o t i n g Alla b a n i v. Gonzales , 402 F.3d 668, 675 ( 6th Cir. 2005)). As the I J con c lud e d, be c a us e Ke re fa ils to m e e t th e re qu ir e me nts fo r a sylum , h e ne c e ssa ri ly fa ils to

me e t th e re qu ir e me nts fo r w ithho ldi ngof re mov a l. D. De nia l of C AT Cl aim “To e stablish entitlement to such relief, [ Ker e] must prove ‘that it is m ore likely than not that he

. . . would be tortured if r emoved to [Burkina Fa so].’” Mapouya v . Gonzales , 487 F.3d 396, 414 (6 t hC i r. 2 0 0 7 ) ( qu o t i n g Singh v . A sh c ro ft , 398 F.3d 396, 404 ( 6th Cir. 2005)). Torture is defined a s any act by which severe pa in or suffe ring , whether phy sical or me nta l, i s in te nti on a lly

inf lic te d o n a pe rs on fo r suc h pur po se s as o bta ini ngfr om h im or her or a third person information or a c onfession, punishing him or he r for an ac t12

he or she or a third pe rson has c ommitt ed or is suspec ted o f h av i n g comm itted, or intimi dating o r coercinghim or her or a third per son, or for a

ny rea son based on discrimination of any

kind, when such pain or suf f er i n g i s inflicted by or at the instigat ion of or with theconsent or acquie scenc e of a public official or other person ac tin g in an off

ic ial c ap ac ity

. 8 C.F.R. § 208.18(a) (1) (e m p hasis added) . We ag ree with the I J that “ther e is not [a] scintilla of evidenc e in t his case that indicates that any body wishes t o torture [ Ker e], and certainly none that the g overnme nt would acquiesc e in or pe rmit that to happen.” III . C ON CL USI ON For the fore g oing r easons, we DENY Ker e’s pe tition t o revie w the B I A’s dec ision.